9to5Mac58%

The reported Apple Upgrade program raises a very big concern 71%

By Ben Lovejoy70%

7/22/2026, 4:19:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and False Dilemma, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 24.1% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 1,123 faulty-reasoning hits from 663 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.9% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,346 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.00% of the article peer group.

A Bloomberg report yesterday suggested that Apple is about to launch a new Apple Upgrade leasing contract to replace the iPhone Upgrade Program. 
There appear to be two significant differences between the two, and one of those is potentially very worrying  
The iPhone Upgrade Program is a straightforward one. 
The cost of your purchase is split over 24 months, and at the end of the two-year period, you own the device outright. 
There is no charge for the credit. 
(Additionally, you have the option of upgrading to a new iPhone after 12 months. 
In that case, a new two-year contract begins, and you are in effect selling the old device back to Apple for the payments you have already made.) 
Apple has not yet made any official announcements about a replacement program, so we don’t know for sure how it will work. 
However, Bloomberg says that it will extend to most other Apple products, with a three-year term for Mac purchases. 
So far, so good. 
But the worrying element is that the report implies it will work in much the same way as a car lease. 
With this type of contract, you are not paying off the total cost of your purchase over the term of the lease. 
Instead, your monthly payments only cover the depreciation of the product during the lease period, plus any interest charged. 
At the end of the lease, you don’t own the product  you have essentially been renting it. 
Again, assuming it works in the same way as a car lease, you will either have to return the product at the end of the lease or pay a balloon payment representing the difference between the depreciation and the full cost of the product. 
Of course, this means the monthly payments are lower than they would be under the existing scheme.. 
It can be argued that this is a good thing, as it will make Apple products accessible to a greater number of people. 
The concerning aspect, however, is that most people don’t set aside an additional monthly sum in order to be able to make the balloon payment at the end of the lease. 
The most common occurrence at the end of a car lease is that people return the vehicle and take out a fresh lease on a new one. 
Essentially, they are trapped into a recurring cycle where they will never own the product. 
If the new Apple upgrade program works in the same way, then the same thing will apply. 
Instead of having the option to hold on to the existing phone for several years, those purchasing in this way will essentially be forced to upgrade every two years for an iPhone or three years for a Mac. 
Even if there are no interest charges, the total cost of ownership over a lifetime will be significantly higher. 
Additionally, if the report is correct that AppleCare+ is not included, people could end up in a situation where their device is lost, stolen, or damaged beyond repair during the lease term. 
They’d not only have to continue the monthly payments on a device they no longer have, but also make the balloon payment at the end of the lease term. 
I can understand Apple wanting to keep things simple by having a single upgrade program and therefore withdrawing the existing one. 
However, I would argue that the better deal for consumers would be to offer the choice of programs so that people can take advantage of the credit while still retaining control over how often they upgrade. 
What are your views on this? 
Please share your thoughts in the comments. 
Apple products on Amazon Renewed 
Official Apple Store on Amazon 
Discounted AirPods Pro 3 
Wireless CarPlay adapter 
AirTag holders and accessories 
Mac Pro-style Mac mini casing 
NordVPN  privacy-first VPN with no logs and independent audits to verify 
Apple photo of Central World in Bangkok 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 5.4%9to5Mac: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.8%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Ben Lovejoy: 3.8%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 2.6%Ben Lovejoy: 1.9%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.7%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Ben Lovejoy: 5.4%9to5Mac: 5.3%Framing Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.2%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Ben Lovejoy: 4.0%9to5Mac: 3.4%Optimism Bias4.1%This article: 24.1%Ben Lovejoy: 3.6%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias24.1%This article: 19.5%Ben Lovejoy: 8.5%9to5Mac: 4.6%Negativity Bias19.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Ben Lovejoy: 1.0%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Ben Lovejoy: 2.5%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Ben Lovejoy: 2.3%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.1%Ben Lovejoy: 5.5%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority8.1%This article: 12.4%Ben Lovejoy: 1.7%9to5Mac: 1.4%False Dilemma12.4%This article: 8.1%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope8.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.5%Ben Lovejoy: 8.7%9to5Mac: 4.8%Hasty Generalization7.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.5%Ben Lovejoy: 3.1%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion1.5%This article: 5.4%Ben Lovejoy: 1.3%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question5.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.3%Ben Lovejoy: 1.0%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof8.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.1%Ben Lovejoy: 4.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal4.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.4%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Ben Lovejoy: 4.5%9to5Mac: 2.4%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.9%Ben Lovejoy: 6.4%9to5Mac: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 5.4%Ben Lovejoy: 3.7%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Ben Lovejoy: 10.6%9to5Mac: 15.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.8%

663 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.3%attributed speech621writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBloomberg • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageBloomberg • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bloomberg

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words100% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bloomberg: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Bloomberg: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Bloomberg: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Bloomberg: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.